3 ms·

> (There, 3 paragraphs that say exactly what the OP said in 1 word. Happy?) Yes, I think that’s a better comment, sans the snark. Regardless, as another comme

> (There, 3 paragraphs that say exactly what the OP said in 1 word. Happy?) Yes, I think that’s a better comment, sans the snark. Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 In general, I find the rest of the article more interesting, and focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script.

the_af 2y ago
While I did find the rest of the article fascinating -- I find the tricks and traps of conmen fascinating -- I do not think the missing context was at all important. It was actually a cop-out. Any Stratton Oakmont business acumen was overshadowed (and possibly caused by) their willingness to commit fraud. It's not something that can be glossed over.
photonthug 2y ago
> focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script. But why? Granted that discussion of ethical considerations are more likely to be divisive / inflammatory. But this is also pretty much the only direction to go if you want to make any discussion of a freaking sales-script intellectually satisfying and promote curiosity/inquiry. This is literally just a guide to the most effective ways to manipulate people. We can try to avoid labeling that sort of thing as "evil", but then again if the abstracted psychology itself is what is interesting rather than the practical aspects of how to trick people, we should probably be looking at psych-papers instead of sales-scripts from famous scams?
aidenn0 2y ago
> Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 It's a stretch to call that "important context" given that: 1. There is an entire article between those two sentences. 2. The desire to work for the company is not couched by that conditional

the_af 2y ago

While I did find the rest of the article fascinating -- I find the tricks and traps of conmen fascinating -- I do not think the missing context was at all important. It was actually a cop-out. Any Stratton Oakmont business acumen was overshadowed (and possibly caused by) their willingness to commit fraud. It's not something that can be glossed over.

photonthug 2y ago

> focusing on the ethical leanings of the author less relevant. I’d rather see more discussion about the sales script. But why? Granted that discussion of ethical considerations are more likely to be divisive / inflammatory. But this is also pretty much the only direction to go if you want to make any discussion of a freaking sales-script intellectually satisfying and promote curiosity/inquiry. This is literally just a guide to the most effective ways to manipulate people. We can try to avoid labeling that sort of thing as "evil", but then again if the abstracted psychology itself is what is interesting rather than the practical aspects of how to trick people, we should probably be looking at psych-papers instead of sales-scripts from famous scams?

aidenn0 2y ago

> Regardless, as another commenter pointed out, the quote is missing some important context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41174244 It's a stretch to call that "important context" given that: 1. There is an entire article between those two sentences. 2. The desire to work for the company is not couched by that conditional